Lamont praised Lieberman's rebuke of Clinton in e-mail in 1998

[wyldwolf]

Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont, who recently denounced Sen. Joe Lieberman for his public scolding of President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, lauded the senator at the time for his eloquence and moral authority.

Lieberman's staff on Saturday called Lamont's recent criticisms hypocritical in light of a 1998 letter sent by e-mail. However, Lamont said he stands by his position that the public rebuke exacerbated the situation.

The Lieberman Senate office released copies of the letter, which Lamont sent to the senator shortly after Lieberman took to the Senate floor to chide Clinton in September 1998.

"I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Lamont wrote.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5386910&nav=3YeX

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Getting Laid On Saturday Night Is Outrageous

Tell that to every American male under 40.

That won't win you votes!

I've maintained since the beginning of the Clinton / Lewinsky matter that Repugs were just jealous that they were not so lucky.

[1932]

2. Daily Kos called this out. Text of email is here (you be the judge):

I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because nobody expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior. . . .
Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe he should be censured for lying--and let's move on.

It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.

http://dailykos.com/

[ProSense]

5. Media spins lie about Democrat to help Republican! Here's the permalink:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/9/14229/50615

[lynne]

7. The email quotes don't match - why is that?

- your email doesn't have the quote as shown below from the OP's article. Was the email you posted shown in it's entirety - or is one of them not accurate?

"I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Lamont wrote.

[ProSense]

10. Here is the actual e-mail

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/09/nyregion/09lamontweb1.ready.html

[wyldwolf]

14. interesting

the poster who excerpted the letter from KOS left out the passage that was the focus of the article in the OP.

[1932]

17. I cut and paste the entire text of the email on the front page of Kos

rather than open the image and cut and past the image link because I was in a hurry. I saw the ellipses.

When this was discussed YESTERDAY, the image was in the OP, by the way. I'd have been happy to have just cut and paste that entire thread here.

[ProSense]

20. The focus of the article is spin!

Lamont clearly objected to Clinton's behavior, so did a lot of Democrats. Lamont obviously wanted the political circus to end, which is the emphasis of the statement in the OP!

From the OP article:

However, Lamont said he stands by his position that the public rebuke exacerbated the situation.

That is perfectly consistent with the e-mail! He supported Lieberman's rebuke reluctantly (missing from, not even implied in the OP article), and called on him to use his "moral authority" to put an end to the "snowballing mess." Did Lieberman comply?

[Guaranteed]

38. WOW. That IS serious spin.

Taken out of context. As usual, I guess.

[1932]

15. Ellipses...Kos has the article quoted in text and an image of the email.

[AX10]

26. Thanks

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Lieberman's camp is using this like a sinking Broadway show

uses pull quotes.

Read in its entirety, it says something altogether different.

[Mr Rabble]

3. Bullshit! This is an absolute lie.

The entire email was later released showing the exact opposite! Lamont was chastising holy joe for getting involved in a sordid episode.

Do a bit of research before you post shit like this.

[IndianaGreen]

49. The OP is a LIE! Lamont did not praise Lieberman at all!

Full text:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/09/nyregion/09lamontweb1.ready.html

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[itsrobert]

6. What's more sad is two people have recommended this

innacurate article for the Greatest Page. Working against Democrats and spouting GOP talking points; JUST SAD.

[madfloridian]

8. Why are Lieberman and the DLC attacking Lamont, the Democratic candidate?

Inquiring minds want to know. The ones of you who find every thread I post about the DLC are always telling me not to be divisive...that we need to work together to win in November.

Well, wyldwolf, guess what. Working together works both ways.

The Third Way president Al From is still attacking anti-war activists, judging us for supporting Lamont.

Bullmoose is still out supporting Lieberman....he is an official blogger for the DLC.

I had a post ready to post last night, but I did not. I deleted a post that was a little divisive because one of the DLC supporters jumped on it to ask for unity.

I have the post ready about Al, Bullmoose, and the support of Joe over the Democratic choice in the primary. Gloves off.

[MoonRiver]

11. I look forward to reading your post.

Sounds very informative.

[wyldwolf]

12. LOL!

Why are Lieberman and the DLC attacking Lamont

Lieberman is attacking Lamont because they're opponents in a Senate race. As for the second part, I always ask you for proof of your DLC asserttions, and I never get it. But I'll ask again: Where has the DLC attacked Lamont?

The Third Way president Al From is still attacking anti-war activists, judging us for supporting Lamont.

Al From is not the President of the Third Way.

Bullmoose is still out supporting Lieberman....he is an official blogger for the DLC.

But he isn't the official voice of the DLC.

[madfloridian]

13. Lieberman LOST....he LOST the Democratic primary.

I know others who lost Democratic primaries, but they did the right thing. They did not go around attacking the winner, they got on board.

You should be ashamed, Lieberman should be ashamed, and the people of CT should be ashamed if they vote Lieberman back in. I think if there is a question about it, then CT is redder that they told us.

Adding some stuff to my post.

[wyldwolf]

16. Isn't he still in the race, though?

I believe so. THAT is why he is attacking Lamont. And that is how politics works.

And further, since you avoided it...

Al From IS NOT the President of the thirdway as you've now twice asserted.
BullMoose IS NOT the official voice of the DLC, as you've insinuated.

the DLC is NOT setting policy as you asserted in a previous post but wouldn't provide evidence of.

[madfloridian]

19. Oops, my bad...Al From is CHAIRMAN of the Third Way

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/246

So looks like Al is still running things under another label. I should never have chosen the word president. I have a post ready with a quote from Al about setting policy.

[wyldwolf]

21. odd conclusion to draw

First he is the president, then he is the chairman, but he still must be running things.

have a post ready with a quote from Al about setting policy.

Nope. Sorry. The quote in no way shows that the DLC is setting policy as you assert.

[madfloridian]

22. You have not seen my post yet....getting it ready.

.

[wyldwolf]

23. so, in that post, will you backtrack on every...

... inaccurate piece of information you've given?

[madfloridian]

24. Please show inaccurate info I have posted.

I would like the chance to "backtrack" as you say.

[wyldwolf]

25. sure...

Here is where you say I've "warned you" about posting about the DLC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2820440&mesg_id=2820558

Here is the first time you claimed Al From is the President of ThirdWay, and where you asserted Thirdway/DLC is setting policy"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2812418&mesg_id=2812418

[madfloridian]

27. Chairman, chairman....just as powerful as president.

AL From appears to control the whole DLC/PPI/Third Way. And he does not like anti-war activists now either.

You wanted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2812418&mesg_id=2813997

And I am working on the post where From states they are working on the policy for the party. Upcoming later.

And in that same thread I posted...someone compared Lamont supporters with Dixiecrats. It is still there I think. It was allowed to stand though many were outraged. (No, that was another thread)

[wyldwolf]

31. so powerful, he isn't even listed on their leadership page

http://www.third-way.com/leadership

In addition, your assertion is the DLC is setting policy for the party. Let's see the proof.

And the proof I have warned you about posing about the DLC.

[madfloridian]

34. Here is what you said to me....here is the PPI page listing leadership.

I will have to post Al's words later about setting the policy. Boy, you don't read what I post at all. I have answered these questions 10 times over, and you just keep asking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2812418&mesg_id=2813997

"Further they are aided by at least one of their bloggers who thinks we need a regime change in Iran.

So do I. Imagine that.

And 52% of the US supports military action if Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. *Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. June 24-27, 2006.

The DLC is still in control of our national message while all folks here do is worry about who is running in 08.

How so?

Put up or shut up."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here is the PPI page, and he has been leader of that group and DLC for a long time.

About The Progressive Policy Institute


"One person with a belief is a social power
equal to ninety-nine who have only interests."
-- John Stuart Mill

Overview

Organization: The Progressive Policy Institute is a research and education institute that is a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Mission: PPI's mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics for America in the 21st century. Through its research, policies, and perspectives, the Institute is fashioning a new governing philosophy and an agenda for public innovation geared to the Information Age.

Chairman, Third Way Foundation: Al From
President, PPI: Will Marshall
Chief Operating Officer, PPI: Paul Weinstein Jr.

Address:
600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20003
Web: www.ppionline.org
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Press Email: [e-mail]

General Inquiries: Please use our Contact Form

Defining the Third Way

PPI's mission arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces re-shaping our society and economy. The Institute advocates a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the Information Age and points to a "third way" beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government. The Institute envisions government as society's servant, not its master -- as a catalyst for a broader civic enterprise controlled by and responsive to the needs of citizens and the communities where they live and work.

The Institute's work rests on three ideals: equal opportunity, mutual responsibility, and self-governing citizens and communities. Building on these cornerstone principles, our work advances five key strategies to equip Americans to confront the challenges of the Information Age:

Restoring the American Dream by accelerating economic growth, expanding opportunity, and enhancing security.


Reconstructing our social order by strengthening families, attacking crime, and empowering the urban poor.


Renewing our democracy by challenging the special interests and returning power to citizens and local institutions.


Defending our common civic ground by affirming the spirit of tolerance and the shared principles that unite us as Americans.


Confronting global disorder by building enduring new international structures of economic and political freedom.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID=896

It is all one group, a trio of think tanks.

[wyldwolf]

35. what does what I said to you in that post have to do with your assertions?

1. Still waiting for proof I have warned you about posting about the DLC.

2. You said, in the link above, the DLC is "defining our policies still." How so?

3. How can Al From be so powerful he isn't even listed on the third way's leadership page?

[madfloridian]

37. That makes no sense, wyldwolf.

I have posted whatever you asked... over and over and over and over.

This is childish and silly.

I have legit concerns about a group with so much power over the party, and I express those concerns fairly.

I don't have to play this silly game of one-upmanship with you.

[wyldwolf]

40. saying you have posted it over and over again doesn't mean you have

your assertion is the DLC is setting policy for the party. Let's see the proof. Where is some policy Howard Dean has advocated from the DLC? Where is some policy Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have set from the DLC?

And the proof I have warned you about posing about the DLC. Where is that?

[madfloridian]

42. Go to my journal, look for the one the other day...

about the national security press conference on C-Span. They held up the material, said Third Way did it, then proceeded to advocate that policy.

You are almost to the point of harassing me everytime I attempt to answer you.

So, I am going to back off on this thread. People are catching on, they just avoid the threads instead of taking up for those being slammed.

I guess it is best that way really.

They are still controlling the party agenda, and they will continue to do so for a long time. We will have a draft, end up in Iran, stay in Iraq and build the middle east as a Democracy. Well, at least they will see to it that we try.

I will continue to speak up for what they do that I think is wrong...but I am not going to have spitting contests with you anymore.

[wyldwolf]

43. I have and it doesn't

Go to my journal, look for the one the other day about the national security press conference on C-Span. They held up the material, said Third Way did it, then proceeded to advocate that policy.

As was correctly pointed out to you in that thread, that was not an embrace of any policy because the study in question WAS NOT policy papers. "The document is a set research papers containing stats. Did you read it, or did you just look at the cover? Look at it again!
It called "The Neo "Con"- The Bush Defense Record by the Numbers." The document lists no "policy" cause that's not what it is. It's 26 pages of tables, graphs and facts (then vs. now)."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2812418&mesg_id=2813225

So, I'm STILL looking for proof of the inaccuracies you've somehow come to believe.

[madfloridian]

44. Find the Third Way website....look for their talking points

under the National Strategy or National Security. The Democrats are using their exact words. Look it up. I have done my research, now you do yours. Listen to the words they are using, do searches on them. Using quotation marks.

We are going to stay in Iraq, we will not even question Bush's little Iran excursion...we will just keep on in the Middle East.

You really need to look some things up for yourself.

I need to finish my other post now. Earthquakes in the gulf and horrible thunderstorms have been keeping me from it.

[wyldwolf]

45. uh... so?

How does using someone's "exact words" (if even true) set policy? And where have I warned you not to post on the DLC?

[Totally Committed]

28. Talk about grasping at straws!

President... chairman... for that you jump all over her?

Who cares what the titular name of the position Al From holds?... He's the head of the operation. And he's a frigging jacka**.

TC

[Ken Burch]

52. Because Lieberman is not loyal either to the Democratic party

or to the ideals of democracy. If he was, and if he was an honorable person, Senator Lieberman would have ended his campaign on primary night rather than acting as if Lamont's victory was somehow illegitimate.

[salin]

9. I would hardly call Lamont's statement "praise" - more requesting

action using that same "moral tone" to get the senate to 'move on' (past the hearings/on going pursuit of Clinton).

Perpetuating the spin from the Lieberman (non democratic party candidate) campaign, that conveniently snipped out the rest of the letter, would seem to be a bit... well ... I dunno... sorta like perpetuating the spin intended to work against the democratic party candidate in a senate race? Maybe sorta?

[CTLawGuy]

18. nice touch by Joe

digging up a private constituent letter. :eyes:

Remind me never to send him any mail.


Also, the whole point of the criticism of Lieberman over this was to point out the fact that he has been WAY easier on Bush for all the things he has done.

So it is not necessarily hypocritical to have supported Lieberman's action in 1998.

but the Closet Conservatives forget this

[Tatiana]

29. Quite "catty" of Lieberman's office to release the email.

Not that I see a problem with him making it public. Lamont sent it to him and in the world of politics, you'd better expect that anything you've ever said, done, or written in the past will come back to haunt you.

However, I don't see this as generating any net gain for the Lieberman candidacy. If anything, it only reinforces my perception of him as a petulant politician who feels a sense of entitlement toward his currently-held Senatorial seat. Hell, *I* was outraged over Clinton's behavior and I agreed (apparently along with Lamont) with many of Lieberman's statements regarding the scandal at the time. Nevertheless, I disagree with Lieberman's positions on many other issues and I think that's why Lamont successfully challenged him in the Dem primary.

While I respect Lieberman's right to run as an independent, I don't think he respects Connecticut democrats' desire for change in representation and that's what irritates me about him.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Read the e-mail in its entirety and compare it to OP's selective quote

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/09/nyregion/09lamontweb1.ready.html

[Tatiana]

50. Should have added catty of the OP as well for being sensationalist. n/t

[JeffR]

30. Oh, well, gosh... Lamont is obviously completely unfit to be a Senator!!!!

What was I thinking? Damn you, Ned Lamont, damn you for your perfidy.:eyes:

[Bob3]

32. nice snark

well done.

[JeffR]

33. You flatter me

It's nowhere near as good as your reply #64.

[wiley]

56. Link, please!

The entire e-mail should be posted on front page of DU. Someone telling Lieberman he should just STFU already and get over himself? I need a link. References to a DailyKos post just don't cut it (especially without a permalink). But yeah, he'd obviously make a real nasty Senator, that Lamont, what with actually caring about the country and kids and honesty and all those evil things Democrats seem to be afflicted with.

[Vidar]

36. Lamont was a private citizen in '98 & not speaking in public.

[madfloridian]

39. If Lieberman wins as CT for Lieberman....who's really the winner?

He's not. He will have won an election that is being supported by many Republicans who are ramping up support for him to hurt Democrats.

So what will he have won after all?

It will be a Pyrrhic Victory: "one that is won by incurring terrible losses."

I am sorry CT Democrats are having to go through this. I was starting to have some sympathy for Lieberman, but the way he is acting is hurting the process of our Democratic party.

[Lerkfish]

41. Gee, I'm really sorry your candidate Lieberman did not win

because that means that now we have to witness your underhanded attacks on Lamont on this DEMOCRATIC forum.

I suggest you go the LIEberman forum and post this garbage where it will be better received.

[IndianaGreen]

47. OP is a grossly misleading article. Here is the full Lamont e-mail

From the NY Times no less:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/09/nyregion/09lamontweb1.ready.html

[wiley]

55. Okay, if this is authentic, Lamont is the best thing since sliced bread

I truly hope that the Lieberman campaign is distributing the entire e-mail far and wide.

[LowerManhattanite]

51. Original post...

...and the its scurrilous and willfully destructive nature--both utterly beneath contempt.



Sore loser-ism at its very worst.

[Blue_Tires]

53. man....who keeps fucking e-mails THAT long??

hey jomentum! open up your inbox and show up the e-mails from bush! there has to be a lot of juicyness in there!

[wiley]

54. So LIE is accusing Lamont of being as big of an asshole as he is?

Just not possible. Lieberman is being so pathetic and desperate that his rank smell alone would keep anyone from supporting him. I'm sure if you swept his office you'd find *'s butt hairs. Like any other Republican, Lieberman must pay a price for his complicity. Or is he just the current Senator from the Vichy region of CT?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. I'm sure as hell I saw this drivel posted at DU weeks ago

and it was debunked then.

[CarlVK]

59. This thread is misleading, and flamebait.

It intentionally mischaracterizes the content of the email (what the motivation of the poster is here, is unclear....do they despise LaMont?) in a...well....for FOX NEWS like way.

Go read the ACTUAL email, and let me know if you think this is not so.

[proud patriot]

60. I'm locking this thread

Inflammatory